Following the excellent news yesterday that the Scottish Agriculture Minister Jim Fairlie MSP has committed to closing the loophole on grouse moor licences (here), RSPB Scotland Director Anne McCall has issued the following statement:
“I am feeling cautiously hopeful following an announcement by Jim Fairlie MSP, Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, promising the Scottish Government will fix an unintended loophole in last year’s landmark legislation to make land management more sustainable through an amendment to the Natural Environment Bill.
“When the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Act was passed in 2024, it was monumental. Scotland finally had legislation to provide a meaningful deterrent to stop the illegal killing of birds of prey linked to grouse moor management, with NatureScot empowered to remove a grouse shooting licence when illegal killing is confirmed to them by Police Scotland.
“However, it has become clear that the wording of the legislation means its implementation does not match the original intention of the Scottish Parliament and risks failing Scotland’s wildlife. Currently, landowners can register for a licence for just the land specifically used for shooting. This means that even if a crime was confirmed in another part of the landowner’s holding, for example neighbouring woodland where some birds of prey breed, the licence may not be removed, unless that crime could be specifically linked to management of the grouse moor.
“Our team that works alongside public enforcement agencies to investigate wildlife crime knows all too well how often birds are killed in woodland or nearby farmland rather than on the moors themselves, and that obtaining the level of proof the current licence conditions demand would be exceedingly difficult, especially on a land-holding that may have other gamebird shooting interests.
“An amendment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act, via the Natural Environment Bill, to ensure that a whole sporting estate is included in any grouse shooting licence will remove the unintended loophole in the legislation and ensure that Scotland truly takes a major step forward for wildlife protection and accountability.
“This approach has secured cross-party support thanks in no small part to efforts by Mark Ruskell MSP in highlighting the issue and the risk to Scotland’s reputation.
“We will be keeping a close eye on this, along with other crucial changes to the Natural Environment Bill, as it passes through Parliament“.
ENDS
The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill is currently at Stage 2 of its passage through the Scottish Parliament. Amendments can be lodged by MSPs up until 13 November and these are expected to be debated on 19 November 2025.
Raptor Persecution UK 
This was more than a ‘loophole,’ a loophole ought to be something slightly hidden but discovered ‘way out’ (in my view anyway) this was a blatant + obvious failing – not what I would class as a mere loophole.
I agree with you.
Unless I am barking up the wrong tree, I suspect there is something of an embarrassing ‘covering of backs’ going on with the language:-(
But, for what it is worth, if I were to attribute blame, my wonky finger would be pointing straight at the Parliamentary Counsel Office. They are supposed to be the experts at drafting legislation – not the MSPs, nor even Government Ministers. After all, how many of them actually had real jobs before taking up full-time politics?
What is supposed to happen is that the proponent of a Bill explains to the Parliamentary Counsel Office (Office of the Parliamentary Counsel at Westminster) what the intention of their Bill really is, and the ‘experts’ at drafting legislation draw up the necessary legal wording, in a two-way process.
My question, then, is: was it deliberate (sabotage), incompetence (in the PCO) or a failure to communicate clearly all of the Bill’s intentions? Or, a bit of several?
But it is interesting how these ‘mistakes’ seem to happen rather a lot with ‘hunting’ legislation (in both Parliaments), isn’t it?
I also found it ‘interesting’ how the Law Society of Scotland (fellow lawyers to those in the PCO) had opposed/questioned several important aspects of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill:-(
According to Google:
“The society argued against a system where a licence could be suspended based on an investigation alone, particularly when a person is innocent.
They stated that, given the severe financial consequences, licences should only be suspended if a licence holder is successfully prosecuted.
The proposed one-year licence renewal period was deemed unworkable due to the tight and unforgiving timescales required for front-loaded investment and employment on grouse moors.
The society expressed concern that adding bird species to Part 1B via secondary legislation would lack effective parliamentary scrutiny and the necessary consultation.
They argued that the list of “relevant offences” was broader than the original scope recommended by the Werritty Review.
The Law Society pointed out that losing the right to shoot grouse has significant financial consequences beyond the immediate loss for the licence holder, such as the loss of rural employment.
The Law Society of Scotland indicated a need for clarity on the bill’s relationship to other legislation, particularly concerning land management and wildlife control”
What is published is a bit more equivocal, but they certainly opposed giving the Scottish SPCA additional powers to investigate wildlife crime and restricting licenses to one year. But see for yourself:
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/media/wmbg2a4f/2023-05-05-rur-consultation-wildlife-management-and-muirburn-scotland-bill.pdf
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/media/zdblpvuy/2023-10-03-rur-consultation-snaring-and-sspca-under-wmm-s-bill.pdf
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/media/tv3eea2z/23-11-30-rur-wmm-s-bill-stage-1-briefing.pdf
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/media/2wtd1xp2/24-03-19-rur-wmm-s-bill-stage-3-briefing.pdf
…’exploited’ way out
Extremely! knowledgeable reply Keith, thanks.
It very much does seem to happen with ‘hunting.’ – through fear of opposing it & un-want of causing upset?? Though not sure it WAS with intent regarding fox etc hunting. (that comes down to their sickening LIE that they ARE trail hunting)
…it was a complete failing altogether – not a ‘way out’
Sorry for being a pest RPUK!!!
No legislation for hunting or shooting just whatever suits at the time we don’t matter.